Expanded War In Syria

richard_daily said:

That's because no one wants to live in a trailer park.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Who gives a shit if our enemies are killing themselves? Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of a carrier in that region? While our military are being hamstrung by Obama he expands their mission. The man is a dangerous fool. He should have kept his mouth shut.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Who gives a shit if our enemies are killing themselves? Have you noticed the conspicuous absence of a carrier in that region? While our military are being hamstrung by Obama he expands their mission. The man is a dangerous fool. He should have kept his mouth shut.

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

So you consider the Syrian civilians to be our enemies?

Click to expand...

koalabear said:

Which ones are Syrian civilians and which ones are Al Qaeda?

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Obama should have kept his mouth shut and not drawn the line. We have no strategic interest in the outcome of their civil war. I suspect the outcome, even if Assad is deposed, will result in the very same kind of oppression and chaos that have been the case before both he and his father came to power. With Hagel making massive cuts in our military and the fact that we are broke, our military mission simply must be diminished. I think Obama should make his case to the American people and get authorization from Congress.

Obama's only legal basis for action is in the Constitution, not the international community. This is about saving Obama's face, not about our national interests. What happens after the bombing? Does he know?

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

And that's the problem, isn't it? I don't think the entire country and the little kids were all Al Qaeda before this all started, and that's a hell of a body count.

Innocent people are being slaughtered, of that there is no doubt. Now if that were to happen in our own country, there would be no question as to whether or not stopping the people doing the slaughtering is the right thing.

I think saving innocent people is a worthy cause. How to do it in this case is the tricky bit. We'd be stopping the government and the rebels from slaughtering innocent people in the crossfire. In the end, done correctly it would save lives by ending a protracted and ugly conflict more quickly. In theory. I'll be damned if I know how though.

Click to expand...

phrodeau said:

Maybe Israel can help out a little this time.

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

You have to believe that he has been stomping around the White House for the past week yelling at any National Security Council staffer within ear shot, "You assured me Assad would not dare cross the line on chemical weapons!! Now here I am in this corner waiting for the paint to dry!"

Click to expand...

koalabear said:

It happens every weekend in every major city in the USA. The middle east has never known peace in the history of man, except when dictators had control.

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

Yes, and we have police and courts and we do something about it. (Not effectively, our prison system sucks and I'd rather we overhauled that if I had my druthers, with the money.)

They've been simmering and throwing rocks and insults at each other, but chemical slaughter hasn't been commonplace.

And this is Syrians against Syrians, not Palestine and Israel.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Other than the need for Obama to save face we are not involved, we have no strategic interests in Syria, period.

Our Constitution does not authorize the use of our armed forces without congressional approval. Bush had the approval of Congress in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and even when the strategy became suspect in the minds of many, it was never withdrawn. Obama, as of today, has no such authority, he had no such authority in Libya. I suspect he will continue to follow the Clintonian example and fail to get authorization this time as well.

I think Samantha Powers, who believes strongly in moral and humanitarian military interventions, is probably pushing the President to intervene right now. I haven't heard a single military leader come out for intervention in Syria.

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

No, that's not true. I think a lot of Americans support resolving the conflict and are unhappy with watching the body count daily. I'd compare this to Rwanda. Any country where it's people are hacking each other to bits. I think the media is also reflecting that and asking questions daily.

It is our business in the sense that if you wander down the street anywhere and hear screams, it's disturbing to listen and listen and do nothing. Well, to some anyway. Yes, many people say "none of my business" and walk on by, and others want to join in.

Military leaders just reiterate that they're ready for anything, and no doubt they are. Syria wouldn't be like Iraq. No fly zone and an international force could wrap it the fighting in short order. I think that's what people want.

It's the aftermath, who is in charge that is the problem, but that was left to the Iraqis and the Afghans and the Egyptians and they did just fine...right?

It's the exit strategy that is problematic, not the entry.

Click to expand...

Pablo Plunder said:

FLASHBACK: Obama Says The President “Does Not Have The Power To Unilaterally Authorize A Military Attack”…




2013 Obama feels otherwise.

December 20, 2007:


Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

Where is the US financial aid going to in Egypt, genius? Please tell me.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

Support of conflicts in the middle east has never been about humanitarian efforts for any US administration in the last 30 years. Just ask the Kurds.

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

I don't think I buy that America wants the middle east destabilized, I'd have to hear that argument.

Yes, the main reason why Syria isn't scoured is Russia, the same reason that North Korea isn't a parking lot is because of China.

Afghanistan...has...a lot...of resources? Now we know that due to surveys, we didn't know that before we went to war. Afghanistan was turned into a Parking lot because they'd pissed off Russia and China didn't care and they're so resource poor that they couldn't bribe their way out of it.

People with lots of market stable resources (Saudia Arabia) buy weapons and faux good will and relations with them.

Click to expand...

Sean said:

Same as it always has been, the military. The US loves to throw the word democracy around, but, when push comes to shove, they're more comfortable dealing with dictators and military juntas.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

The US hasn't been able broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine in 30 years. You think that we're really expending effort there?

So since 3/4 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, we should instead invade Iraq?

Come on... that makes absolutely zero sense.

Click to expand...

richard_daily said:

And yet, at the end of WW2, we were the ones that placed a Jewish state right in the middle of a hotly contested religious zone.

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

Obama should have kept his mouth shut and not drawn the line. We have no strategic interest in the outcome of their civil war. I suspect the outcome, even if Assad is deposed, will result in the very same kind of oppression and chaos that have been the case before both he and his father came to power. With Hagel making massive cuts in our military and the fact that we are broke, our military mission simply must be diminished. I think Obama should make his case to the American people and get authorization from Congress.

Obama's only legal basis for action is in the Constitution, not the international community. This is about saving Obama's face, not about our national interests. What happens after the bombing? Does he know?

Click to expand...

vetteman said:

You liberals squander our national currency, our blood, like you do our Federal Reserve Notes. What's another American genetic hemorrhage when it's somebody else's son and daughter, right?

Click to expand...

Sean said:

The irony of this coming from one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's two bullshit wars is just breathtaking.

Click to expand...

Recidiva said:

Sasha, Man, I like talking to you, but that's too much in one post.

I can't edit that much. That's my job and I'm not doing it for free, I'm not.

Click to expand...